Research

What does is visualise?

- a scenery.
- fairytale style
- routes
- names of parts of the park

It is not very detailed, we wonder if everyting is shown. We think that is not the case nor the goal of this map. The goal is showing an overall view so people know where to go.

We also noticed that the artist who made this map played with depth. It is not very realistic, it is an illustration. So this map also has an aesthetic function. It tributes to the vibe of this attraction park.

It also has traditional aspects like compass and a legenda. We noticed the map is upside down. South is the upside and north the downside. We thought this was because it is focussed on the entrance of the park.

you see what it is, but not where it is situated. Is it another world or country? It summons questions.

Theme:
Fake news and the map: It is an illustration so it does not give a realistic view of the Efteling in real life.

IDEAS (video):

- showing a personal view so what we show does not need to be fact checked.

- Get carried away in a story:
- magnify the subject
- choosing one subject and starting to share realistic information and
magnifying it on the way.

- Possibly making an Instagram account to spread fake news, this could be very serious or funny.

-Making a character which influences the story you hear.

-WHAT DOES A NARRATIVE INVOLVE:
- How and by who a story is being told (personal.)
- A choice: What do you leave in/out?

"Experiments consistently show that even when people encounter balanced information containing views from differing perspectives, they tend to find supporting evidence for what they already believe. And when people with divergent beliefs about emotionally charged issues such as climate change are shown the same information on these topics, they become even more committed to their original positions."

"We confuse popularity with quality and end up copying the behavior we observe."

"when people are repeatedly exposed to the same stimuli, such as certain faces, they grow to like those stimuli more than those they have encountered less often."

"Social media can also increase our negativity. In a recent laboratory study, Robert Jagiello, also at Warwick, found that socially shared information not only bolsters our biases but also becomes more resilient to correction. He investigated how information is passed from person to person in a so-called social diffusion chain. In the experiment, the first person in the chain read a set of articles about either nuclear power or food additives. The articles were designed to be balanced, containing as much positive information (for example, about less carbon pollution or longer-lasting food) as negative information (such as risk of meltdown or possible harm to health).

The first person in the social diffusion chain told the next person about the articles, the second told the third, and so on. We observed an overall increase in the amount of negative information as it passed along the chain—known as the social amplification of risk. Moreover, work by Danielle J. Navarro and her colleagues at the University of New South Wales in Australia found that information in social diffusion chains is most susceptible to distortion by individuals with the most extreme biases.

Even worse, social diffusion also makes negative information more “sticky.” When Jagiello subsequently exposed people in the social diffusion chains to the original, balanced information—that is, the news that the first person in the chain had seen—the balanced information did little to reduce individuals' negative attitudes. The information that had passed through people not only had become more negative but also was more resistant to updating."

Game helps users learn how to spot misinformation. The game simulates a social media news feed, showing actual articles from low- and high-credibility sources.

Why do people make fake news?

In the Netherlands fake news is mainly spread to make money. The more people click on an article, the more money the makers get from the advertisements shown. And a catchy, sensational headline often delivers a lot of clicks. And thus a lot of money. We call this clickbait. People also deliberately make fake news to influence opinions, for example in the run-up to elections.

Examples of fake news.

The fact that fake news can have great influence became apparent during the 2016 US elections. Google, Twitter and Facebook were accused of giving free rein to fake news. This disinformation would have allowed Americans to influence their votes and enabled Donald Trump to become president.

One of these fake news stories was about Hillary Clinton's prominent role in a paedophile network. The network was said to be run from a local pizzeria in Washington. This message had serious repercussions. It led to a shooting at the pizzeria. The shooter wanted to check whether children were being held as sex slaves.

Fake news was also a major problem during severe floods in India in 2018. For instance, a fake video was circulated in which a man in an army uniform 'announced' that the army was halting rescue work in Kerala. The video passed by in numerous WhatsApp groups and was also shared thousands of times on Facebook.

Why do we believe fake news?

Because of the volatility of social media it is not always easy to look critically at information. When we see a message, we immediately make an unconscious judgement about it. We immediately see whether it is interesting. And we are also quick to judge whether something is true or not.

Because of this unconscious judgement, we are more likely to fall for a fake message that confirms our opinion (this is called confirmation bias). We are also more likely to think that something is true if many people like or share it.

Makers and distributors of fake news play cleverly on this. They confirm existing opinions and prejudices and use fake accounts to make their messages seem extra popular. They use all kinds of psychological techniques to try to convince their readers.

Recognising these techniques and critically assessing information are important media literacy skills.

In addition, fake news can also cause unrest in society. An important tactic of fake news makers is polarisation: they set people against each other. They choose more extreme subjects and play on emotions, such as fear of strangers or the unknown. In this way they influence public opinion and how certain people in society are viewed.
https://www.mediawijsheid.nl/nepnieuws/

Some people use freedom of speech to spread fake news or disinformation. The sender may have different reasons for doing so. For example:

1. The sender wants to cause trouble with the message
Does the sender cause unrest between two people or groups of people? If so, he or she may be doing it deliberately. On the Internet, you can often respond anonymously. Therefore, it is easy to sow hatred in this way. Sometimes a country or a government uses disinformation on purpose to cause unrest and differences of opinion in another country. For example, to influence the outcome of elections.

More information about threatening tweets and hate messages on the internet can be found at Mediawijsheid.nl

2. The sender may earn money with the message
Does the sender want to lure you to a page with advertisements? Many website creators make money when internet visitors see their online advertisements. Messages from websites that are only created to make money often have a heavy subject and exciting headlines. This causes extra people to click through to the website. This way, the author earns more money.

3. The message can also be a joke
Making jokes is allowed of course. But they can be dangerous if people really believe them. Does the message seem like a joke? Then it can also be satire. On some websites there are only satirical news items, but no real news items.

Who is spreading fake news?

-Social bots
-Individuals and organisations (money)
-Political organisations
-Authorities/governments
-Journalists (money)
-Trolls
-Usefull Idiots

https://honours-twitterchecker.sites.uu.nl/wie-verspreiden-nepnieuws-en-waarom/

In our research, we focus on conspiracy theories.The problem with conspiracy theories is that they have as much evidence as the main story, but are often believed by fewer people.

When you compare conspiracy theories with Schrodinger's cat, you see that they both deal with multiple possibilities in a situation. One difference is that a conspiricy theory is often convinced that it is the only truth, whereas schrodinger assumed multiple truths at one time.

The existence of multiple realities intruiged me. Because in principle, until proven otherwise, conspiricy theories are also a possible explanation of a problem.
Believing a conspiracy theory often results in living in another reality. Think of some radical isolationist groups.

If you compare the radical groups who believe a conspiricy thoery and the people who follow mainstream opinion with schrodingers cat who is both dead and alive you can see another similarity. Until there is a visual and clear judgement on a problem, different truths will continue to coexist.